Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#41

Post by tzs »

> The gist of the model legislation is this: Device manufacturers would be forced to install "obscenity filters" on cell phones, tablets, computers, and any other Internet-connected devices. Those filters could only be removed if consumers pay a $20 fee.

Assuming that the device manufacturers do not actually want to participate in this, is there anything that stops them from making the removal code be some simple function of the serial number, and throwing up a website that will compute that function for $20? It will quickly get cracked, of course, and for the most part won't serious inconvenience anyone during the time it takes to get the stupid law overturned.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#42

Post by Pyxl101 »

bogomipz wrote: post #23

It's worth notice that many of these same states[1] mentioned in the article lack any interest in enacting an assault weapons ban to protect their citizens from deadly violence. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/assaul...

It's worth notice that "assault weapons" is a loaded term, that really just means "rifles that are [scary looking | painted black | etc]". It's not a meaningful technical class of weapon distinct from other semiautomatic long guns, or really from handguns. (Handguns can be semiautomatic, can shoot the same caliber ammunition as rifles, and can have the same size magazines.)

In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be.

No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#43

Post by aerotwelve »

Point of personal privilege: I am so embarrassed that Iowa is on that list.

If your state happens to be listed, please remember to vote in November. There has to be serious electoral consequences for every politician who thought it was a good idea to put their name on such an abhorrent piece of legislation.

Freedom of speech is not an in-app purchase.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#45

Post by gremlinsinc »

4ad wrote: post #4
nickpeterson wrote: post #3

Apple could basically choose to ignore this law if it passed and these state governments would reveal they have no actual power in the globalized world. Oops

Why would Apple do such a thing? Presumably there would be fines if they didn't comply. If everybody is doing it (which is just Google and Apple, really), nobody gains or loses and advantage, so why would they care?

Apple could take a gamble and cease operations in states that require the changes, thus pissing off constituents and making them back pedal and change the laws.

A lot of Apple users aren't too bright (1000+ Mac Mail TS issues while serving a stint at a major shitty hosting firm owned by EIG), and would be lost without their apple devices.

Device manufacturers could instead sue on grounds that it's not their responsibility that the local govt will need to come up with their OWN apps and force consumers to install them, or local telecoms. There will be lots of court battles for sure...

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#46

Post by confounded »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #34
4ad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Apple do such a thing? Presumably there would be fines if they didn't comply. If everybody is doing it (which is just Google and Apple, really), nobody gains or loses and advantage, so why would they care?

Apple has a large part of their reputation built on security and privacy, neither of which is at all possible with arbitrary government censorship software baked into every device.

Blocking malware for the security of the nation is the justification for GCHQ building a Chinese-style firewall around the UK’s Internet.

So in that case, the pitch is security. The pitch can always be varied as long as there are bogeymen.

This is the problem with relying on marketing (or markets) to protect you.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#47

Post by orangecat »

justonepost wrote: post #37

A better way would be to require all browser makers or OS makers add an easy to use child protection filter that can be easily enabled by parents. This is a serious issue and while the OP bill is obvious censorship, all parents want more easy control.

A better way would be to require all browser makers or OS makers add an easy to use child protection filter that can be easily enabled by parents.

That's still a bad idea, unless we want to criminalize a whole lot of existing software. Suppose I have a Python script that parses HTML from a URL and downloads all the images it finds. Would that be illegal to distribute unless I hook into the OS-level filters? For that matter, what about Python itself?

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#48

Post by DavidSJ »

deathanatos wrote: post #31
rgbrenner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read their faq... this question and the one after it: http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/#q2 They encourage retailers and manufacturers to charge more than the $20 and pocket the difference. They are marketing the bill as pro-business.

The writing and grammar on that site is terrible, but the double-entendre on that question takes the cake: > the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare. I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.

The writing and grammar on that site is terrible,

I’m sorry to do this, but I think you mean that the writing and grammar are terrible, not that they is terrible.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#49

Post by mmirate »

echevil wrote: post #44

Sigh... If the lawmakers want to copy from China, why not copy their gun control laws first and actually save some lives..

Because copying their gun control laws would, at best, not save any lives.

If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

Re: Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy

#50

Post by heartbreak »

DavidSJ wrote: post #48
deathanatos wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writing and grammar on that site is terrible, but the double-entendre on that question takes the cake: > the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare. I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.

The writing and grammar on that site is terrible, I’m sorry to do this, but I think you mean that the writing and grammar are terrible, not that they is terrible.

Things aren't always what they seem.

Fish and chips is what I had for dinner.

Post reply on HN